Another Finals Query/Question

[Bomber]

I have been thinking:
I agree 100% with sheeds - this new finals system makes it MUCH harder for top 2 to get to where they would have got last season, ie Prelim final.

Take Carlton for example, they are gonna have to play the sleeping giants, North, in the first final. That is one hard final for both teams - what motivation is there now to finish top 2?

This season it may work out okay as top 2 are a bit better than the rest, but in a normal year, top 2 are in for very hard games, which is not fair! Shouldnt it be the aim of the AFL to have the top 2 with the easiest roads thru to the GF? Look at the recent past - when was the last good GF?

I never saw the problem with the old system itself, the MCG rule was a problem, but the system itself was as good as an eight will get IMO.

I know the AFL wont do it, but the final 5 is the best system.

 

[Richmondfan#1]

Unfortunately, I can't answer the question as I'm having trouble understanding the new final 8 system. I"m really stuck!

 

[Dan26]

No, the best system is a knockout system, where 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and 4v5 in quarter finals.

Sure, if 1st lose they are out after one match, but so what ?

1st currently go out after one loss anyway, right ? They can go out currently after one loss in the 3rd week (prelim) of 4th week (GF).That's what can happen right now, right ?

So, what difference does it make if the one loss that eliminates you is in the first week ?

NONE ! No difference.

I don't recall Essendon getting a second chance last year after finishihg top. I don't recall North getting a second chance in 1998 after finishing top. Or St.Kilda in 1997. All those 3 team were eliminated after one loss and they all finished on top of the ladder.

If everyone s treated equally, and NO TEAM IS DISCRIMINATED against, then that is the best system. Becasue 1st would play 8th and 2nd would play 7th, the two best teams would be seeded to play each other in the Grand Final, if they won their quarter finals, and then their semi-final (same as prelimianry finals)

Look at Tennis.

There are 128 competitors at Wimbledon. ALL OF THEM are treated equally. There are no second chances. if you are top seed you have to win 7 kncokout matches, and if you are the worst player you also have to win 7 knockout mathces. No discrimination.

The only thing is that the top players are seeded. They are SEEDED so that 1st and 2nd seeds will meet in the final if they keep on winning.

That's no different to what I am proposing. 1st earns the right to play 8th, 2nd earns the right to play 7th, with those two teams meeting in the GF, if they keep on winning.

How is that any diffeent to tennis ? It's no different.

Pete Sampras is seeded number 1, right? But does he get a second chance if he loses ? No, of course not.

The finals should be completely knockout, with OBVIOUSLY more recognition to go to the "top of the ladder" team to complement this exciting finals series.

 

[kevin sooky]

Sheedy got the Final 8 system he was agitating for, during the last 3 years. So he should either shut up and stop complaining or else change his name to my name and make it official.

 

[Pessimistic]

The finals system is based on two lots of final fours, with a crossover in the prelims

If you criticise this one , then criticise that also

At least there will be some finals worth watching in the first week - look at the poor crowds recently - Could that be why the AFL7 made a change ?

 

[Bomber]

The real problem is too many teams!

IMO if you finish 8th, half, out of 16, you should not make the finals! Clubs like Adelaide or Bris may sneak in this year, but no way has their season been worthy of a finals birth.

Under the current system, the AFL is basically saying there is no real difference, only home advantage, in where you finish in the top four. At least with the top 5 there was an incentive to finish top, it meant something. Today, it means nothing.

 

[Dan26]

Bomber,

And what is the best way to solve that problem. What is the best way to give the top team some incentive ?

Come on.....you know the answer. it's my favourite topic.

No, it's not the finals five. Wrong answer.

Its...........

 

[servo]

I don't believe this. I agree with Dan24 & Bomber. Two Essendon supporters, I must be sick.

Firstly Bomber, yes 8 finalists is too many. I don't see why half the field should progress. 6 is probably the bestratio but 5 provides the best finals structure.

But if we must have a final 8 then Dan24 is right. All finals should be knockout as in a seeded tennis draw. The reward for finsihing higher is home finals and playing the lower ranked team. If all goes according to seedings the best two teams over the season will meet in the GF and not before.

 

[The Good Guy]

You've got to be joking. A knock-out competition for the finals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we adopted that approach, and in the first week of the finals either Essendon or Carlton lost they would be out. Come on Dan, you follow the Bombers, would you really go for that, we would never hear the end of it, from all the Essendon or Carlton supporters.

 

[Bomber]

Dan

the problem I still have with your idea of basically having two separate competitions if you like, is that our home and away season is not even at all. If every team played everyone twice, home and away, then the final ladder would be a great indication of the season went.

First should recieve more recognition, but to totally cut the finals away from the season is wrong, its against the way football has always been played. Its like a Triathlon, if you are a good runner and swimmer, but cant ride a bike for $hit, then you lose. In football, the season includes the season and finals, and to win the flag you need to go well at both, especially the later.

 

[Grendel]

Im with you bomber, if its an uneven draw then it cant be a fair system. Its pure logic.
Final five was the best system for sure but that will never be reintroduced simply for ecomomic (read greed) reasons.

ps very good side you have out there at the minute.

 

[molar]

Nearly every year the final eight system is criticised when certain teams fail to meet expectations. It would not matter what methadology is used if the favorite does not win the system will be considered flawed.

 

[Dan26]

The Good guy, and grendel,

I have mentioned this many times when this topic comes up, but YES the H&A is uneven.

BUT......so is the finals series, which you are defending. The finals series (in which you only need to play 3 of the other 7 finalists) is MORE uneven than the H&A

Always remember that. Always.

Also, if it was knockout, sure 1st could lose to 8th and be eliminated. So what ? Look at how it is now. 1st can be eliminated after one loss in the prelim, and the GF as it currently stands, so what is the difference ?

None.

 

[Grendel]

Dan mate, were had that dance, lets not go there again hahaha.

 

[Bomber]

Hold on a sec - the finals system isnt supposed to be even - if it was then it would be flawed. Top 'should' gain the best chance, Second second most etc. Thats why we have a home and away season - each team striving to finish as high as possible.

The Home and Away system is put in place to rank teams going into the finals - therefore it should be fair, not uneven.

If a finals system was fair to everyone, what is the point of a home and away season? Might as well have a 16 team finals system and get rid of the season!